Good luck Peter, But the analogy to devastating bushfires is entirely inappropriate. They are a consequence of post-European fire suppression. Traditional burning has fire trickling across the landscape like water. Without it we have upside-down country -thin on top and thick underneath. Sick trees with lazy roots. And 3D continuous fuels that go off like a bomb when ignited in severe weather. You should talk to Victor Steffensen. This is all backed by fairdinkum science NOT CONSENSUS. See Firestick Ecology Vic Jurskis.

What is happening to this man is a disgrace – something that would have happened in Soviet Russia. A gag order! Emails raided! Can't even speak to his wife! Perhaps we have all been dreaming, and we are actually living in the old USSR?

“... around 50 percent of recently published science is wrong, because the results can't be replicated by others”. Where are all the chunterers who rabbit on about 'peer reviewed science'. They are nowhere to be heard. It seems that Australian 'science' is a complete joke: 80% rubbish, yet their confidence tricksters are still fooling our complete joke of a government.

Ridd has had his human rights trampled into the dirt, and not a word from our gutless government. The same gutless government that encourages tourism as a big money-spinner, but ignores Ridd and the very people who operate the tourist industry and say the same thing as Ridd: the damage to the reef is greatly exaggerated – or a complete lie.

The disjunct between the normal scientific process and mainstream media presentation, when contained within the paradigm of advocacy, represents a threat to the integrity of science. Science seeks the truth in knowledge whilst mainstream media advocacy seeks to propagandise this knowledge. This impact is reinforced if a scientist-modeller is directly quoted as an expert, further blurring the line between science and advocacy. This has societal repercussions as science has become so model-dependent that the citizenry is not always able to differentiate between what is scientific knowledge and what is advocacy. The implications of this approach, as regards policy development, are likely to have a profound affect on society.
Model-dependent science is built upon a sandcastle virtue of consensus that its adherents are forever fearful of being swept away, based, as it is on putative sources that we are told we should trust and never question. Not to trust the consensus so earns the epithet of denier (or worse), a pejorative term applied to those kine of sceptical mien or those who have the ability to think critically or freely.
By trusting in putative sources, the consensus is actually what? It is never actually explicitly stated as to what the consensus actually is; all that is said is that we have to do something, and not ask questions.
More power to you Peter, JCU and the other publicly funded institutions you mentioned should hang their heads in shame.

The peer review system is actually worse than described because most editors actively suppress scientific debate. Where a controversial article receives one favourable and one unfavourable review they go with 'çonsensus'.

We are all well aware of your current beef with James Cook university. And your widely differing "scientific" opinions.

One can only say, when it comes to honesty in reporting the facts. Cameras rarely lie.

All you claim including being unable to talk to your wife, might be true, but as Robbie Burns might have commented, I ha'e ma doots.

On another note, you remind me of the son of a proud mum attending a passing out parade and chest swelling with pride said, look there's Tommy and he's the only one in step!
Alan B.

As Prof Ridd has pointed out, the reef has been declared almost dead so often by "experts" that questions have to be asked about these experts and the quality of their research. That much of the research in this area can't be replicated does not surprise me at all. The real surprise is that when Prof Ridd said what was blindingly obvious to anyone who's looked at the many public pronouncements about the reef, he got sandbagged for his trouble.

Ridd has claimed, he's been sandbagged for his beliefs and utterances. And has been held criminally liable for those utterances. Clearly he's being prevented from witness prepping/tampering, in my view?

His only defence is to prove his utterances are true! With unimpeachable evidence.

Given he has that evidence and is able to prove his claims before 12 of his peers It's his fellow Professors/James Cook university, who will pay a pecuniary penalties and Professor Ridd's costs.

One can't have trial by media, nor is it a place to mount a defence, however spirited. In the hope to influence later legal outcomes.

Professor Ridd will have his day in court and is the only place where his alleged claims can be both aired and settled! And where it's impossible for his alleged adversaries to apply a gag!

Methinks the good Professor doth protest too much!
Alan B.

Methinks the good Professor doth protest too much!...

I share your scepticism on this character AlanB.

"he who pays the piper calls the tune" can't be wrong with our good professor.

*...Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation.

Work has recently been done at Hay Point and Abbot Point as well as at Barrow Island in Western Australia. The general philosophy is to use the instruments and analysis methods which are developed by the Marine Geophysics Lab to give a competitive edge for tendering for contract work..*

This is about two things; pro-coal and anti climate change!

Alan B: look there's Tommy and he's the only one in step!

Strange as it may seem. Tommy could be the only one actually in step. You are supposed to march in time with the Drum. but is the rest are marching to the up beat & Tommy is marching to the Correct beat of the Drum then Tommy is the only one in step. Although, he will be forced to change step or get bawled out.

I do feel your pain Peter. JCU, like all Universities run on Funding. AIMS is no exception. If there isn't a Doomsday Scenario then there is no Funding. We all know that. Now given the latest Fad, GW, 40 years ago it was GF (Global Freezing.) I don't like your chances. Even if you prove them wrong, you'd never work in Australia again. You are not allowed to prove the Holy of Holies wrong. The girl in America did with Australia being a Country as well as a Continent. Got her money back, I believe.

You are right though. Virtually nothing was known about the GBR until AIMS was set up. I went for the opening. They had little Funding & it was considered just an ads on to JCU, a toy really. So the first they had to do was to establish a reason to exist. They discovered the "Crown of Thorns" was going to destroy the Reef in 20 years if nothing was done. Wahala! Funding!
Cont.

Cont.
The local fishermen & my two brothers on their Trawlers & one in the Charter Boat Industry pointed the AIMS Staff to Fishing Grounds, Fresh Water Springs, Breading Grounds & everything else that the AIMS Staff suddenly discovered that no-one ever knew about. WOW!! 2 examples. One of my brothers was operation out of Upstart Bay & came across great schools of Giant Manta Rays Mating. He went swimming with them. Took Photos etc. Later on, on the way to Townsville he called into AIMS & spoke to the Head & gave him the Photos. He was ordered off the Pier & told that no-one in the World knows where they Giant Manta 's mate. a year later one of the AIMs Staff made an amazing discovery. The only known place in the World where Giant's mate.

Another Brother working out of Cairns hit a Bommie & damaged his Prop Shaft. He pulled into Princess Charlotte Bay. While he was waiting for a new prop he went exploring & came upon a long carved stone landing with long narrow grooves in its deck. Some holes & semi-circular drag marks around the holes. He said there were about 6 or 7 of these holes that looked like they were some sort of Pole Crane. There was what looked like Egyptian Hieroglyphs on the cliff face behind the landing. He took photos & went to JCU & showed someone in the History Department. They threw the photos at him & said that if the investigated his find & it was correct then they would have to rewrite the History of Australia. He was sent packing.

I’ve had discussions with an JCU Historian. I collect News articles going back to the 60's. He said Australian Aboriginals had been in Australia for 500000 years & only one invasion. I pointed out the discrepancy with earlier reports on finding in WA of at least 70000 years & even earlier with at least 3 invasions. He admitted that his finding were a consensus of current Aboriginal thinking & therefore correct.
Cont.

cont
The AIMS Staff immediately shut down most of the fishing areas & made No Go Areas in thanks to the fishermen. Then as the Reef didn't totally disappear in 20 years they need another reason to be funded. Coral Bleaching caused by Hot Water, Coal Sediment from the Coal Terminals. (GW)

Now, as I remember, the Major Rivers on the East Coast of Queensland would flood most years. Huge & I mean Huge amounts of Sediment would run out of the Rivers onto the Reef. Smothering them from top to bottom. Any fertilizer runoff was diluted greatly by this.

Another factor is that the Australian Continental Plate is moving northward at 75 mm a year. The Corals remain in place in water temperatures they are accustomed too as the this happens. That’s why the Reef is “seemingly” moving southward. Any Corals just relocate according to their temperature types. This is the very reason why the GBR is so long.

They put Levee banks in place to stop the runoff & dammed the Rivers. The Reef no longer received the annual nutriment supply it had relied on for millions of years.

The Greenies & the Socialist University Staff at the Universities are still looking for increased Funding so they create or rather expand on the GW Factor & woe betide anyone who disagree with their agenda.

I feel sorry for you Peter. You are fighting an unmoving entrenched Socialist Bureaucracy.

Diver Dan/Alan B

sorry guys but its almost entirely the other way round. The university and the institutions are making good money from research grants and to keep that money going requires scaring people over reef/global warming. If they come out with research saying everything is okay, then the grants start to dry up. Ridd may also have skin in the game but he is likely to be far more dispassionate than the uni. The JCU has a history of sitting hard on anyone who goes against the wisdom, incidentally. It severed connections with Bob Carter, a distinguished professor, a couple of years back, basically because he was a prominent sceptic.

Hieroglyphs carved in stone cliffs...? Like the 25,000 year old skulls found in the early 1980's in caves near Margaret River region in WA. Examined in Europe (Switzerland I was told) & identified in 1983/4 as a race of taller white skinned 'Aboriginal peoples' later wiped out by successive waves of Australoids aka: modern aborigines - the Nyoongar.

No apologies needed, no 'Sorry Day ?' "...move along these aren't the droids you're looking for" kind of thing. More Jedi mind tricks by the academics with their paid for degrees and doctorates handed to them by the vested interests & the Aboriginal Industry sycophants.

Would love to know where those archaeological finds ended up.

' Ultimately, I am fighting for academic and scientific freedom, and the responsibility of universities to nurture the debate of difficult subjects without threat or intimidation.'

you are a hero Peter. Unfortunately to much of academia is cowardly. They know stepping outside the narrative is almost as difficult as a conservative getting a 10% of time on the abc.

btw good to hear the reef still doing well. In the 70's I was told it would be well and truely stuffed by now. Oh well the scientist who survived by telling lies have to sleep with it.

Peter, your stance is heartening to anyone who values science, and deplores the actions of those, like James Cook University, who back the climate fraud being perpetrated on us.
Bob Carter was instrumental in uncovering the climate fraud by exposing the baseless “science” put forward by the IPCC. For his trouble, he was harassed by JCU, which was probably one of the contributing factors to the heart attack which caused his death.
JCU shamelessly attacks anyone exposing fraudulent climate “science”, and is a prime candidate for Nigel Calder’s “Hall of Shame” for climate fraud promoters.
Congratulations, Peter, on this article, and your courage in standing up to climate fraud.

Nigel Calder, who has since died, wrote this in 2011, so the climate fraud has been no secret, but the fraud promoters are determined and vicious, as demonstrated by JCU:
"Hall of Shame
Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?
For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.
And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/

Leo Lane.

I don't think climate change is in debate. What is debatable is the cause!

Curmudgeonathome

You make the point, as do I, money is at the root of the problem.

This problem of bulldust published as scientific truth is a product of the overexpansion of academia, & far too many universities, courses & graduates.

What do you do, when your faculty is turning out graduates every year into a world that has too many marine biologists already?

You could stop the courses, & lose your job, or you could try to generate a looming catastrophe, requiring lots of your graduates to join research facilities or university staff.

The very best thing we could do for the reef would be halve funding for AIMS, the Marine Park Authority & James Cook, then halve it again in 5 years. As a minimum student intake must be reduced by 75% or perhaps much more.

Of course it is not just Marine Biology that is in this position, but at least half, & probably a much higher percentage of faculties at most universities.

Anyone should be able to pay to study at university, but less than 15% of the current students should be funded by the tax payer. They are just not bright enough to advantage those paying for their education, with their subsequent work life.

Hasbeen

If you get a chance watch today's Press Club presentation (14/2/'18) by Professor Emma Johnson in relation to to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Diver Dan says:”I don't think climate change is in debate. What is debatable is the cause!”

Who said it was, in the normal meanng of the word in English.
You cannot be unaware, Diver, that the leading climate fraud promoter, the IPCC, tampered with the meaning of the phrase, so it is now understood to mean human caused climate change.
There is no dispute, just a one sided, baseless assertion by the fraud promoters that global warming is human caused. Honest competent scientists have demolished the pseudo-science said to support the fraudulent assertion of human causation, and there is no basis for the assertion that humans have any measurable effect on climate.
If you know of any such science, Diver, please inform us.
Otherwise keep your comments to topics of which you have an inkling of knowledge
The fraud promoters, having no science, are limited to personal attacks on the competent scientists who expose them, as in this current scurrilous and dishonest attack on Peter by the JCU fraud promoters.

Leo Lane.

Demonstrate to me how we can have something approaching eight billion humans on this small planet, and not have an effect on climate change.

Humans are in plague proportions.

Then we have the Chinese producing unbreathable air, in their mad rush for riches.

But in the face of the obvious, no I'm not a climate scientist, but I observe that the polar caps are melting, the Ph of the ocean is reducing towards the acid end, the oceans are over fished, ocean pollution is problematic.
Coral reefs globally are stressed from ocean water temperature increases, as reported by coral biologists.

And to cap it off, I don't have a concern for the welfare and career path of this character Peter Ridd, (who coincidentally is not a coral biologist, he's a physicist. A knowledge of corals is not his department). Nor the uni who employ him.

Quite frankly, if he wishes to wag the dog by the tail, and the uni sack him for it, good!
Plenty of experienced and highly educated employees of uni’s have walked out their door when they started wearing boots that were too big for themselves, that's not new!

So no, I can't say climate change is driven by irresponsible human endeavours or not, and I said that early in the piece.
But a better question for you would be, how could it not be

Diver Dan,we all know that you have taken the bait, & swallowed the fear generated by the Socialist left Greenies. That's OK. We understand where you are coming from.

Please read my earlier post that should explain things for you.

The Reef has been waning back & forth, up & down for the last 112 million years or so when Australia has entered the Tropics (see Continental Drift) after breaking off from Sth. Africa, Antarctica & India. The Reef is relatively new, only about 12 million years old. Just wait until we bang into China in 160 million years time. The reef would have been swallowed up by then I suppose.

It's unlikely Humans will be around by then anyway.

Relax son, Let the poison take effect.

Diver Dan says:” no, I can't say climate change is driven by irresponsible human endeavours or not, and I said that early in the piece.
But a better question for you would be, how could it not be”

You have summed it up, Dan.
You do not know, but will ask a stupid question based on your ignorance anyway.
You are not concerned that an honest scientist is being victimised by his dishonest employer, whose greed makes it a climate fraud promoter.
If you knew anything about the topic you would know that the CO2 alleged to do the warming is supplied 97% by nature, and 3% by man. The human effect is not measurable, no doubt because it is so small, like your knowledge of the topic.
You need not apologise for your ignorance, just for your gall in posting your rubbish on the thread, when you were aware of your ignorance.

Well said Leo.

Leo Lane

It's like my good old mother said many years ago, "sticks and stones will break your bones, but a good slap across the left wooly lug-hole will do you better".

I was never one to grow contemptuous inside the captive ordinance.

You sound very comfortable in there Leo. Best of British!

Yes, Diver, no science to support your scurrilous support for the climate fraud, just a pointless comment to underline your ignorance.
You have told us that you are ignorant of climate science, but you still support the climate fraud, and dishonest, science lacking perpetrators like JCU.I did not call you any names, so your mindless assertion must refer to the names you called yourself.
Stick to what you know, Diver, and we will hear very little of you.

The Great Barrier Reef is made up primarily of dead coral limestone, and the structre is fringed with living and sometimes dead coral, true or false?
So how can it be correct to say the Great Barrier Reef, the limestone structure, is dead or dying?

As for nutrient from farms, how can N&P from farms be singled out and measured as different in quantity to the N&P from city and town sewage?

How can transportation of dissolved nutrient in the Australian east coast sediment dispersal system be ignored in GBR coral science, when nutrient fed algae mass can be seen covering dead coral?
Consider nutrient bonded to fresh water that travels in surface water pushed northwards by prevailing S and SE wind. See: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1

I first dived on the GBR in the 1960's. As i write this now I am sittig on a Pacific Island coral shore where most coral is dead and green with nutrient pollution prolferated algae.

Beware about cry wolf and real damage to coral worldwide.

"The university and the institutions are making good money from research grants and to keep that money going requires scaring people over reef/global warming."

This is untrue. Universities lose money on research grants. The University has to provide all of the infrastructure and salaries of the PIs. The grant itself goes on salaries and operating support for the project. The Federal Government pays a small fraction of the value of grants to Universities to support the infrastructure, but it is not enough.

Scaring people does not keep the grant money rolling in. People get tired of being scared pretty quickly. You have to show the research is good as well, otherwise your peers will rip your grant application to shreds.

Ridd has a personal stake in downplaying the impact of human activities on the reef, as it brings in his consultancies. If he is right and JCU is wrong that will turn up in his court case. Fighting his battle on FOX News suggest he has lost his sense of perspective.

Agro: Scaring people does not keep the grant money rolling in. People get tired of being scared pretty quickly. You have to show the research is good as well,

Nah! If they get found out they just shift the scare focus somewhere else.

I see the latest prediction has begun to shift to Global Freezing, predicted for about 2035. GF failed to materialize in the 80's, GW has failed in 20's & GF will fail again in the 50's. & the cycle of fear goes on.

Someone is making money off this.

"I see the latest prediction has begun to shift to Global Freezing"

I can't see anything in the scientific literature suggesting this as a possible outcome.

The news stories come from a conference presentation by a mathematician suggesting they are able to accurately predict the Sun's magnetic activity. This is probably unlikely, but even if there is a sustained period of low magnetic activity, the Earth won't cool that much because of all the extra carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere.

In fact based on solar activity alone, the Earth should be in a cooling phase now, but it isn't.

Agro: even if there is a sustained period of low magnetic activity

Yes , the eleven year cycle. Still the Earth is closer to the Sun at the moment because of the Earths Maximum 152.6 km & Minimum of 147.4 km. The Earth is nearing the Minimum. So it will get hotter for a while yet, Also the Tilt of the Earth is declining towards the Minimum. It's currently at 23.44 degrees but there is also the Wobble to take into account, if the Summer & Winter wobble takes December closer in the Nth. Hemisphere it get colder in the North & hotter in the Sth. Hemisphere in Summer. Warmer Summers the Nth. & colder Winters in the South on the way around. Nothing to do with CO2.

Tea on the Table, bye.

the Earth won't cool that much because of all the extra carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere.

Agronomist says” Universities lose money on research grants”.
This must almost be your most stupid statement yet, and that is saying something, considering your record. That would explain why they fight so hard for grants, so that they can fulfil their aim to lose money.
You also say, Agronomist:” Ridd has a personal stake in downplaying the impact of human activities on the reef, as it brings in his consultancies. “
Do you have a source for that assertion, or did you fabricate it yourself. It is the standard fraud-backer’s tactic, to make up lies about an honest scientist, so please let us have the source.

Agro: even if there is a sustained period of low magnetic activity

Yes , the eleven year cycle. Still the Earth is closer to the Sun at the moment because of the Earths Maximum 152.6 km & Minimum of 147.4 km. The Earth is nearing the Minimum. So it will get hotter for a while yet, Also the Tilt of the Earth is declining towards the Minimum. It's currently at 23.44 degrees but there is also the Wobble to take into account, if the Summer & Winter wobble takes December closer in the Nth. Hemisphere, it get colder in the North & hotter in the Sth. Hemisphere in Summer. Warmer Summers the Nth. & colder Winters in the South on the way around. The difference being 46.88 degrees or 426067 km.

If a difference of 426067 km makes a Temperature change of about 40 degrees, between Summer & Winter in the Nth. Hemisphere think what a difference of 2.6 million km’s will do on Earths 410100 year travel around the Perion. Sumtin’ like dat. Anyway it’s explained much better here.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-earth-orbital-variations-sea-ice.html. Earth's orbital variations and sea ice synch glacial periods.
Milankovitch Cycles - Climatica http://climatica.org.uk/climate-science-information/long-term-climate-change-milankovitch-cycles

Agro: the Earth won't cool that much because of all the extra carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere.

Any extra CO2 will be absorbed by the extra greening in areas that are now too cold & all will come back into equilibrium. Da dah

*….Any extra CO2 will be absorbed by the extra greening in areas that are now too cold & all will come back into equilibrium. Da dah…*

AND reabsorbed into the ocean, reducing the Ph in the process. (Ocean acidification).
Coral has a very narrow margin in the Ph scale to regrow.
This could be easily explained by a coral biologist; which is what PR isn't.

The GBR will die out. That's also part of the process of climate change, which includes ocean acidification from CO2 reabsorption.

Extinct coral reefs abound, as evidence of this evolutionary process.

Diver Dan,

Where can I find "extinct coral reefs" you refer to? Google shows nothing about extinct coral reefs.

As for ocean acidification, why is calcite based coccolithaphore algae thriving in healthy unprecdented massive blooms?
Why are the microscopic calcium bases of that algae not dissolving due to acid

You always were a dill, Leo Lane.

Research grants are about reputation, not profits. There is no profit to be made out of a research grant (unless it is a consultancy). The grant money has to be spent on the project or given back.

Consultancies on the other hand have a profit component built in. How much varies, but 25% for the University and 35% for the researcher is not uncommon.

"Do you have a source for that assertion, or did you fabricate it yourself"

Peter Ridd stated it on his website.

https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/peter.ridd/

"Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation"

Agro:The grant money has to be spent on the project or given back.

Like all grant money. So it gets wasted on crap science, fake wages, consultancies just to use up all the money. The same happens with Amateur Sporting Clubs, etc. I remember those days. Spend on apparatus you don't really need, work out what's left then pay volunteers just to use it all up otherwise you have a hard time explaining why you need so much next year.

JFAus

Extinct coral reefs...

The Austrian Alps would be among the most dramatic. But all corals went extinct 250m years ago, so extinct coral reefs abound.

JF Aus

Why are the microscopic calcium bases of that algae not dissolving due to acid...?
Your question.

The oceans are acidifying. They are a long way from acidic. Point .1 Ph since industrial revolution. But predictions are not good for the future. The acidification process is accelerating.

diver dan

The Austrian Alps including coral limestone reef is still there, the original reef now reef of limestone is not gone, is not extinct.

There has been reported so called scientific evidence ocean acidification is linked to coral bleaching. So I am asking why microscopic calcite is not dissolving or otherwise impacted by acid able to damagr coral.

Anyway from my view based on long term observation and evidence of substance, coral bleaching is linked to cause of ocean dead zones.
Excessive nutrient is proliferating excessive algae that sometimes takes up available oxygen, bloom mass sometimes covers coral, suffocating the coral zooanthellae algae and coral animal, leading to bleaching/whitening.

Yet JCU and GBRMPA seem to ignore nutrient load totals from sewage effluent dumped daily.
Somehow farmers are blamed, when by nature rivers only run with runoff following rain.

And over abundance of algae is feeding over abundance of COTS larvae leading to plagues killing coral.

Reduce the nutrient load. Recycle. Use algae to produce biofuel.

Peter Ridd, how about you apply your honesty and real science, and research impact of the total nutrient load within the sediment flow entering GBR waters.

Jf Aus: Excessive nutrient is proliferating excessive algae that sometimes takes up available oxygen, bloom mass sometimes covers coral, suffocating the coral zooanthellae algae and coral animal, leading to bleaching/whitening.

Actually I would say the nutrient run-off is about a zillion times less than it was before the damming of all the Rivers on the East Coast. Maybe that's what's causing the die-off

Yet JCU and GBRMPA seem to ignore nutrient load totals from sewage effluent dumped daily.

I wonder why? Maybe because there is none on the Northern East Coast. In fact I would say almost zero. I don't know of any towns that pump effluent out to sea like they do in Sydney. Lots of blind Barra's on Bondi when the wind changes.
Somehow farmers are blamed, when by nature rivers only run with runoff following rain.

Diver Dan, oceans are never acidic, except in the lies of climate fraud promoters, so you are showing your ignorance again.
“‘Acid’ is an emotive word to the general public, which is why it is seized upon by the alarmists in their search for yet another scare. In reality increasing CO2 makes the ocean become ‘less alkaline’, but never ‘acid’.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2012/05/the-myth-of-acidification-of-oceans/

JF Aus

*…There has been reported so called scientific evidence ocean acidification is linked to coral bleaching. So I am asking why microscopic calcite is not dissolving or otherwise impacted by acid able to damagr coral…*

Ocean acidification, (A reduction in Ph does not mean acidic. A Ph of 8.1 is not acidic), is detrimental to coral thriving.
As seawater becomes less carbonate, coral larvae lose the ability to cement themselves into position.
Corals a made from the calcium carbonate, aragonite. This is the first in line to become soluble as seawater Ph reduces.

The prediction is, at the current rate of acidification, coral reefs will be extinct by the end of this century. (80 years away).

Don't worry about bleaching, it's all over anyway as history shows.
The mass extinction at the end of the Palaeozoic era, was caused by a massive hatmospheric spike in co2. The oceans turned lethally acidic.
Life for anything with a carbonate skeleton, became impossible.

Leo Lane.
You need to educate yourself on corals, you show your ignorance!

DD: The mass extinction at the end of the Palaeozoic era, was caused by a massive atmospheric spike in co2. The oceans turned lethally acidic. Life for anything with a carbonate skeleton, became impossible.

Yep, they all died out. That's why we have corals to day. Hey, then, thinking about extinctions. Woolly mammoths & Rinos, Giant Kangas, etc. all died out for some reason but life (but not as we know it)went on anyway. Just nature doing what nature does best. Copping with change.

The little Polyps' just swim on until they find somewhere where they can attach. That's how regeneration & new Coral Reefs form.

Agronomist says:” You always were a dill, Leo Lane. “
That is in the evidence free assertion of a dishonest, climate fraud supporter, who cannot supply a reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate.
Do you base your support for fraud on dishonesty or on ignorance Agronomist?.
If you know nothing about the science, it is your ignorance. If you know enough to be aware that there is no supporting science, then it is your dishonesty.Please clarify your position.
In any event you follow the fraud promoter procedure of derogatory, untrue names for anyone who exposes your fraud supporting.
I ask you again for a reference to any science showing a measurable human effect on climate. If as usual, you cannot supply it, I would say that makes you a dill, as well as a fraud supporter.

JayB.

*...Yep, they all died out. That's why we have corals to day...*

No. It's not why we have corals today, you need to study up on that if you want the answer!

We're right into a mass extinction now. And guess what, right on cue, oceans are acidifying as Co2 levels in the atmosphere increase. It's all so predictable.

But the precedence for blaming humans for rising levels of Co2 is non existent. Or is there?

Since the industrial revolution, the Ph of the ocean has dropped point one from 8.2. But how can we be sure if that? Well we can't! It's a belief based on conjecture.
On the surface of it, it could be construed that humans and their industry have made a contribution.

So science projects an astounding degree of conjecture. You would really need to be a scientist to have a true understanding of reality, wouldn't you think? OLO scientists project an astounding degree of conjecture too I notice.

The natural occurring Co2 in the atmosphere is indistinguishable from industrially produced Co2, so I believe it is premature to lay blame anywhere.
There is plenty of evidence of massive spikes in Co2 atmospheric levels, prior to humans even walking on the earth.

But, one thing is certain, corals are not happy critters, and plenty of research by experts in coral biology can attest to that!

Diver Dan has a short attention span. He has forgotten already that he told us of his ignorance of climate science.
He has the temerity to tell someone to update their knowledge of coral.
Here is an update for you, Diver, so that you can make an even bigger fool of yourself:” Georgiou, et al. 2015 have reported that coral reefs in the Australian Great Barrier Reef, near Heron Island, are insensitive to ocean pH changes. “
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/04/coral-reefs-temperature-and-ocean-ph/
Here is what you said, Diver:” But, one thing is certain, corals are not happy critters, and plenty of research by experts in coral biology can attest to that!”
It certainly reminds us of your ignorance, as it should remind you. You know nothing about coral, do you, Diver?

Attention : Peter Ridd.

Jayb,
There is more sediment deposited on the northern Queensland coast that anywhere else on the east coast of Australia.

Heavy sand sediment falls out of the alongshore current and down over the contintental shelf off northern Frazer Island. Lighter suspended matter and dissolved nutrient continues northwards within current pushed northward by energy flow from the alongshore current as it leaves Frazer Island.

Energy in flow that transports heavy sand cannot just stop at Fraser Island. That flow continues into the GBR lagoon and some must reach Cape York. Prevailing SE winds press that fresher surface water against the Queensland coast. The majority of turbid sediment-linked water in the GBR lagoon exists that lagoon at Cape York, though significant suspended matter becomes sediment along the way. That sediment assists mangrove growth along that coast.

I think Peter Ridd could submit defence by way of example that JCU and GBRMPA ignore the science associated with the nutrient load entering GBR waters from the Australian east coast sediment dispersal flow.

Why is southern nutrient load flow into GBR waters not included in GBR science? I think, (a) because government is virtually the polluter, (b) sewage rate money is applied elsewhere, (c) managing the relevant nutrient load mayq hinder some coastal development.

P.s.
"exits that lagoon at Cape York",

My last remark to Agronomist on this thread” I ask you again for a reference to any science showing a measurable human effect on climate. If as usual, you cannot supply it, I would say that makes you a dill, as well as a fraud supporter.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 17 February 2018 12:54:06 PM”
As usual with fraud promoters, like Agronomist, once they have cornered themselves wit heir dishonesty, they disappear.
We have seen this tactic before, from Steele Reduux, a climate fraud supporter, who disappeared from the thread when questioned about his baseless dishonesty in his support of the climate fraud.

You really are a dill Leo Lane. This is a thread about the health or otherwise of the reef. A side issue I addressed was curmudgeonathome's false claim that Universities make money from research grants.

But you are an idee fixe poster. You have to weave your nonsense about human activities having no impact on the climate into every thread. Some of us have better things to do than try and explain the science over and over again to your completely closed mind. No doubt you will use your masterstroke and pull out the Oregon Petition again - or maybe start citing Anthony Cox on the matter.

agro: A side issue I addressed was curmudgeonathome's false claim that Universities make money from research grants.

I don't think that's a false claim. That's exactly what it's all about.

Agronomist says” human activities having no impact on the climate into every thread. Some of us have better things to do than try and explain the science over and over”
What dishonest assertions you make. Show me where I have made any such assertion.
I have asked fraud supporters, like yourself, to direct us to any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate. You are unable to do so, because there is no such science. You have no science. Show one instance of you “explaining the science”
You have no science to explain. As Professor Bob Carter said some years ago:” It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
That remains the situation.
Dishonesty will not sustain you, Agronomist, you have sunk yourself.

"agro: A side issue I addressed was curmudgeonathome's false claim that Universities make money from research grants.

I don't think that's a false claim. That's exactly what it's all about."

It is indeed a false claim. Universities lose money on research grants, because the funding provided by Governments doesn't cover the true cost of doing research.

Consultancies and contract research are different where the University can recoup the additional costs from the sponsor.

Leo Lane claims "What dishonest assertions you make. Show me where I have made any such assertion." and then goes on to make precisely that assertion. Some people are just fools.

Agro: It is indeed a false claim. Universities lose money on research grants, Consultancies and contract research are different.

Semantics, & we all know that Consultancies are a big Con bordering on Fraud. It all has to do with Creative Accounting. Ay.

The actual problem could be lead joins in copper pipes, sending you all mad on rhis thread here. TIC LOL
Lack of scientific evidence gets me.

There is no scientific evidence of how gravity is generated and no one can produce gravity in a laboratory.

Reality is gravity exits, plus, GBR and world coral is being damaged and devastated by nutrient overload proliferated algae, nothing to do with CO2 emissions

You did not need to present further evidence that your thinking faculty is deeply flawed by making the assertion” and then goes on to make precisely that assertion. Some people are just fools”
You say that my constant assertion is .” human activities having no impact on the climate”. When asked to indicate one instance of such an assertion by me, you point to my comment:”to direct us to any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate. You are unable to do so, because there is no such science”. You lack the ability to think straight Agro. No wonder you are a fraud supporter.
Talking nonsense is your attempt to distract from the fact that you have no science to support your position.
Of course human activity has a local effect on climate, and I am asking if you have any evidence of a measurable global effect, and you are so addled in your thinking that you cannot give a straight answer

You have hit the nail on the head there, Leo Lane, it's local not global change.

JFA: GBR and world coral is being damaged and devastated by nutrient overload proliferated algae,

The GBR is just about to die again. Have you seen the nutrient overload coming out of the Burdekin River at the moment. Imagine what the overload was before the Dam was built.

LL: Of course human activity has a local effect on climate.

I agree but not the the extent Globally that is claimed. Global Warming is Cyclical over many tens of thousands of years.

Jayb

A sudden burst of nutrient from runout of a natural or modified Australian east coast river is not likely to amount to nutrient overload pollution. Australian east coast rivers do not run daily. They only run following considerable rain.

Farmer's know that distributing fertilizer once a month does not cause damage (but is likely a waste money).

However, add upriver town sewage to various rivers flowing into coastal alongshore current already loaded with southern city and town sewage nutrient dumped daily, then the nutrient load from all the point sources will likely amount to nutrient pollution causing damage.

Aus river silt contains solid nutrient and soil matter that is visible and settles locally, compared to dissolved N&P nutrient that is invisible and is bonded to fresh water transported long distances in surface current driven by prevailing winds.

Evidence I have indicates climate science has a lot to learn, especially about the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) that is a known anomaly in AGW science.

Warmth in ocean and waterway algae plant matter was not measured and assessed in AGW Kyoto associated science.
Buy I think its being measured and assesed right now.

JFA: You keep bringing this up mate. NQ is not the outflow at Bondi which all ends up on Bondi Beach. Good fishing, lots of brown Barra I'm told. ;-)

You seem to have a fixation on Sewage, besides water cleans itself as it travels north anyway.

NQ was very, very late in getting Sewage so the Towns & Cities have all the latest systems installed. I explained all this to you previously. You seemed to have overlooked, or ignored, what I said.

No Sewage goes into the Burdekin anywhere along the River Catchment. The Catchment, by the way extends from behind the Range at Innisfail to behind the Range at Rockhampton. So anywhere it rains behind the Range it flows into the Burdekin. Although the Dam only catches what falls behind Innisfail to Townsville. The Bogie & the Sutter are lower than the Dam but the water is stopped by the two big Weirs At Milleroo & Clare. Lots of big Sharks up there so don't go swimming in the Weirs. They can't get back to the Coast.

When the Burdekin does Flood, like at present, Tons of silt gets washed out to the Reef & the Coastline around Alva Beach changes, once again. I know, because that's where I grew up. I've seen the water one metre from the road way & flooding the local areas with Inkerman mill 20 feet under water. That's why in Home Hill you will see houses on 20 foot stilts on the River side of the Town. It's only a little flow, not even breaking the Banks.

Still that's a lot of Silt going to the Reef. A lot more than a few shovelfuls of Coal Dust that fall of the Conveyor belt going to the ships at Abbots Point. That Coal Dust stays around the Loading Facility. That's why they had to dredge it recently. The Coal Dust is inert & doesn't react with anything on the Reef. It's like the sand.

Jayb,

I very much appreciate discussion with you but you are incorrect about a number of things.

You say no sewage goes into the Burdekin River.
Where do you think all the shire sewage waste water with nutrient goes? I think most of it has reach the Burdekin River and ocean as I have said.

Burdekin Shire trickle filter treatment of sewage does not remove any nutrient. In fact bacteria digesting solid matter excretes more nutrient. Lumos may be trucked away but even landfill leeches into waterways. Tertiary treatment is needed to remove nutrient but not all.
So sewage nutrient is going into the Burdekin River. See here :

http://www.burdekin.qld.gov.au/services/waste-water/overview-of-sewerage-schemes/#gsc.tab=0

PS.
I am presently travelling back to Aus and its difficult to concentrate and write. I will reply to your other comment a.s.a.p.

Thanks for input.

Jayb,

How do you think water cleans itself on the way north when most east Australia coast sediment excluding heavy sand is known to be deposited along the north Queensland coast?

I would say 98 percent of sewage treatment plants or schemes along the Aus east coast do not extract nutrient. The nutrient load dumped into coastal ecosystem current is unmeasured and unmanaged. That is the problem worldwide.

Absolutely most silt does not reach the GBR because the GBR is too far offshore. Only perhaps during a once in 100 year flood might some small amount of sediment reach the actual GBR.

Ocean waters should be understood generally but are not and I think that forms evidence Peter Ridd is correct about need for real science and knowledge not coming out of GBR 'science' at present.

Its not doom to me because real science can lead to solutions and employment and prosperity in a healthy world.

Eeerrr,
JFAus said;
How do you think water cleans itself on the way north when most east
Australia coast sediment excluding heavy sand is known to be deposited along the north Queensland coast?
---
Doesn't the East Australian current flow South ?

Bazz: Doesn't the East Australian current flow South ?

It does sometimes but mostly sand & anything else moves northward. This can be seen after heavy seas when the sandbars build up or lose sand. That's why they build those sea groins around the Gold Coast to stop their beaches from being washed along the coast. They've been doing that for hundred of years because it works.

The east coast of Australia alongshore current flows northwards because of prevailing wind against the coast. It is the current linked to the east coast sediment dispersal system. It has no actual name.

The East Australia Current flows south offshore including outside or east of the Great Barrier Reef. The EAC is a warm current with exceptionally good underwater visibility.